First it was digital projection. Then 3D. And now James Cameron has set his sites on a more subtle – but possibly more important – innovation in film: frame rates. While the industry has been stuck at 24fps since the Roaring ’20s, Cameron believes that by bumping that up to 48fps, or even 60fps, Hollywood can dramatically change our cinematic experience.
According to the LA Times:
He used a number of cinematic techniques in the footage to illuminate what he called the gravity of the gap between, say, 24 and 48 frames. One scene set at a dinner table included a number of panning shots, so the crowd could see how a 24 fps shot caused the image to “strobe” — which is when an image looks blurry, almost as if it is appearing in slow motion, seeming out of sync.
While even the filmmaker admitted that he was only able to notice a slight difference between a 48 fps and 60 fps, the audience audibly reacted to the increase in quality between 24 fps and 48 fps. The footage shown at 48 fps was far clearer and also had a much more realistic tone to it. That might be an issue for some filmmakers, Cameron acknowledged.
Most projectors are already capable of handling higher frame rates, and Cameron plans to shoot his Avatar sequel at a minimum of 48fps. [LA Times]
Newtown Mack
Saturday, April 2, 2011 at 6:05 PMAPRIL FOOLS!
Sam
Saturday, April 2, 2011 at 8:44 PMThe main problem with shooting higher frame rates is light, you need more as you go up in frame rate, this gets very expensive and limiting when filming. Another is a problem of film durability, if cinemas project at higher speeds the risk of tearing film is much higher, especially if running again and again. Just have a look at the rolling loop an Aussie had to invent for imax to work without tearing.
Hsin-Tsai Chang
Saturday, April 2, 2011 at 9:10 PMyay, another pointless invention!!
Josh Martini
Saturday, April 2, 2011 at 10:49 PMIt’s taking hollywood a long time to catch up.
I’d really like to see all movies coming out at 60fps, specifically action movies.
Alex
Sunday, April 3, 2011 at 12:37 AMNow this actually sounds like something that could make cinema viewing better.
It’s nice to hear something different to all the consistent 3D hype.
Simon Reidy
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 10:00 AM+1. Anyone that understands the difference frame rates make to image quality will know this is a hugely important move. I’ve been waiting for it for years.
We perceive quality from both spatial (pixels per frame) and temporal resolution (frame rate per second). Increasing temporal resolution can have just as significant effect on perceived image quality as increasing spatial resolution. At 48fps+ all film judder is eliminated and everything is ultra smooth.
This is far more important than 3D and anyone that doesn’t get it, needs to do some homework. Compare a native 720p60 video to a 1080p24 film and unless you are visually impaired you’ll see a big difference whenever there is motion.
The only problem is that shooting at higher frame rates can look “too realistic” to some people. Similar to how TV’s look when they have frame interpolation mode switch on. This is because we are used to films having that blurry 24fps look, and we equate high frame rates with video (as pretty much all video is shot at either 50i,60i or 60p). However our eyes will get used to this increased look of realism and will allow all sorts of awesome fast panning shots that were never possible with 24fps. Imagine retaining perfect spatial detail while the camera moves quickly across a scene. It’s going to be awesome.
We’ve been stuck with 24fps since the 1920s. Definitely time for an upgrade.
Arthur
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 10:43 AMI think this is great, particularly in the increasing adoption of digital film media. Sam’s and Simon’s comments are apt, but I also agree that it is a (almost) necessary next step.
The main problem that I would foresee would be in the cost of film – a full length feature shot on cinema-quality film will cost upwards of 2 million for film and film processing costs. Doubling or tripling the number of frames is going to have a major effect on that associated cost. If it’s all shot digitally, of course, this cost is avoided. However, it would also mean that the prints supplied to cinemas would also have to be digital to avoid the added cost of all that extra film.
Andrew
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 10:44 AMI think you’ll find that 95% of filmmakers don’t want this to happen. There’s something about the cadence of 24p which makes films seem cinematic and almost dreamlike. Most filmmakers don’t want their films to have the motion characteristics of a sitcom and will choose to shoot their films at the traditional 24p even if the technology is available. Otherwise, they feel that the experience of the movie will be adversely affected.
Of course for some filmmakers and genres the choice may be made to shoot and present the film at higher frame rates but the decision should be up to the discretion of the director and cinematographer. If James Cameron wants to do it this way then it’s up to him but he shouldn’t impose it on everybody.
Simon Reidy
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 11:37 AMThere’s no doubt that the cadence of 24fps is a beautiful one, that people know and love (its a shame so may modern TVs destroy it if motion interpolation is on!). I agree it will be with us for a long time yet.
It might be a case of fast past action 3D films moving to 48fps, and drama and other types films that aren’t presented in 3D will continue to be shot at 24fps.
Another bonus too, is that even though the frames are currently just repeated, movies are already projected at 48fps or 72fps to avoid flame flicker in the cinema. This means they should theoretically be ready to go displaying 48fps content.
48/60fps is important for 3D (even if like me you’re not a big fan of 3D in general) as it means they can push fast moving scenes and objects with less blur and eye fatigue. This is one of the reasons IMAX 3D looks so much better than RealD at your local cinema. It’s also one of the reasons playing games in 3D on the PS3 at 30-40fps is s lot easier on the eye (and immersive) than Blu-Ray 3D. At least that’s been my experience so far.
Dan
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 11:53 AMI frikkin hate the look of 3D..and even HD. Lets keep it at 24p yeah. I watch 99% older movies because i like they way they look better. We don’t need to do this.
Mr Biggles
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 3:29 PMAnd I like a good book…
This moving picture madness is quite obviously the devil’s work. Pure evil witchery bring the dead to life like that.
Nonsense I tell you, and no good will come of it whatsoever.
Rossco
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 5:16 PMLol, gold Mr Biggles :-D
jimbo
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 5:54 PMlol DAN clearly the modern world isn’t for you :P
james whatsit
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 11:22 PMhaha, this will rape his last ‘next big thing’ imagine an active shutter 3DTV trying to keep up with 48fps. ghosting hell!!
Adrian Cascun-Valencic
Tuesday, April 5, 2011 at 9:01 AMI think the romantic connection people have with the cadence of 24Hz is completely nonsensical. It’s real, but it’s a pointless throwback emotion that harks back to the very beginning of the “Motion Picture”.
It bothers me that filmmakers are so insistent on using actual film, rather than enthusiastically making the change to digital. The advantages that Ron Moore (BSG) talks about on the commentary tracks are all applicable to feature films and it boggles my mind that movie-makers are so unwilling to use a format that’s cheaper, faster and more flexible with zero compromise on quality.
steven
Tuesday, April 5, 2011 at 11:12 AMjust want to point out something Film is dead. James cameron shoots with digital cameras and cinemas are switching to digital projectors. Avatar for example was shot on digital and the 3D done on digital projectors. This is great for 200 million dollar movies. but more frames means a higher CGI special effects budget and the leap forward from 24 to 60 isnt really that great to justify spending an extra 40 million on special effects. So he wont be getting that much studio support for increased budgets with the same return on investment.